phecy, e. g., that to suppose the spiritual succession of the ministry transmitted through a medium characterized as antichrist amounts to a contradiction. Now this strikes me as an assumption. It may be a difficulty-an unaccountable mystery; so is the prevalence of evil, and the partial success of the evil one in his continual struggle against Christ's kingdom. So are the deceitful artifices by which, with a Protean versatility, he assumes every form-even that of an angel of light, in order to defeat the salvation of men. All that we can venture to say is, that for a time these things are permitted. The prince of this world has his season of riot, and rebellion, and mischief. There is spiritual wickedness in high places, as well as in the more secret recesses of the human heart; and why may not the highest of Christ's ministers be influenced by this malignant power, so as to become rebels and traitors to the cause in which they are sworn? Fall down and worship me, and all these glories shall be thine, was the original temptation addressed to our Lord. He, indeed, was proof against it, and his example is recorded in the Gospel as a guide and warning to those who are to succeed in the government of his earthly kingdom. And how instructive is the lesson, when we learn from history that this temptation has actually succeeded in alienating the very leaders of his church from their duty! It is surely the temptation of worldly grandeur and power that is the solution of all that mystery of iniquity, of which Rome has been the patron and the most prominent example. Into the details of the prophetic imagery, and the chronology of the Revelations, I have no disposition to enter; neither do I think it at all serviceable to the cause of Gospel truth. Each succeeding commentator has been admirably successful in refuting the hypothesis of his predecessor; and now this last school screens itself against such a danger of assuming that the prophecies must be understood literally; and, therefore, they are all as yet unfulfilled. If I do enter at all into the consideration of this question in my Pastoral Address, I think of recommending that middle class of interpreters, as Jewell, Field, and a few others, adverted to in a note of Todd (see vi. page 325), who regard the corruptions of popery, not as affecting the whole body of the church, though nominally governed by the Pope, but that there always was a large party in the church bearing testimony to the truth, and, whether secretly or publicly, holding the true faith, uncontaminated by such errors. To me it seems not improbable that the Council of Trent, which first decreed all these errors and corruptions to be essential parts of the Christian faith, was an epoch which may be regarded as critical in the history of the church; and I see no reason for rejecting the obvious interpretations of St. Paul's words in 2 Thessalonians and 1 Timothy, as descriptive of the antichrist seated as a god in the very temple of his kingdom. Not that I would analyze the particulars, about forbidding to marry, and enjoining abstinence from meats, as solely characteristic of this apostasy, but as generally descriptive of that spurious religion into which a departure from Gospel simplicity always falls, and which this antichristian power availed itself of as one of its instruments of delusion. Shortly after the preaching of those two sermons, to which the above at its commencement refers, the bishop wrote to the Provost of Oriel as follows: My dear Provost, December 9, 1840. I am inquiring everywhere, but hitherto without success, for a curate to take charge of a church under very peculiar circumstances, and it strikes me that the universities must contain individuals well qualified, and not indisposed to undertake such a charge. It is the parish church of Newport (called St. Woollos), which is now most unfortunately situated, the place swarming with population, and increasing daily, all sorts of dissent prevalent, and, in addition to these evils, of late the Roman Catholics have made great efforts to acquire an ascendancy there. They have enlarged their chapel, built a tower, made it look like an important church (many people call it a cathedral), and about three weeks ago they opened it with great pomp, announcing in the county newspapers and in hand-bills that pontifical mass would be celebrated, four prelates and twenty-six clergy attending, and on two successive days sacred music, with performers from London, would accompany the service of the mass, to which people were invited to come by purchase of tickets. I heard of this just as I was preparing to leave my diocese, and I resolved to stay a week longer, in order to counteract to the utmost of my power these proceedings. I believe my exertions were not unavailing. I wrote to the principal families, entreating them to take no part in the ceremony, or to attend it, and I announced by bills that I would come the next Sunday, and preach twice against the errors and corruptions of the Church of Rome. I mention this to show the character of the place and the nature of the emergency, and I am most anxious to place an efficient curate there. He must, however, be not only a man of talent, energy, character, and good judgment, but he must have something of his own to live upon, for the salary will be only 1007., out of which he must find lodgings. But it is a field of action rather attractive to many persons, and one in which he will be well supported, and will have the satisfaction of acting an important and most useful part. Surely among the fellows of colleges some such person is to be found. He would be appointed by me as bishop. Excuse the haste in which I write. Ever yours sincerely, E. LLANDAFF. I begin the year 1841 with a letter, in which a subject of great interest at that time is noticedDr. Chalmers and the Free Church. My dear Provost, Deanery, St. Paul's, Feb. 23, 1841. Everything goes on well, I hope, under your roof. I was gratified at finding that your addition is on the minority side as to sex, which I hold to be a desirable thing in a family. Alas! your brother Francis, about the same time was deprived of his little infant, which, according to Jeremy Taylor's beautiful comparison, was like a lamp that went out ere it was well lit. He dined with me the day before this loss, having comforted himself with the belief that danger was over. He met a party of some interest. Among them were two Edinburgh clergymen, Dr. M'Farlane and Mr. Cunningham, introduced to me by a letter from Dr. Chalmers, whose errand was to interest the bishops and other M.P.s for the non-intrusion party. We had much friendly discussion, but I told them I thought their sensitive objection to the interference of the civil power, to the extent to which they pushed it, an over-refinement. The fact is, Chalmers and others-men of the greatest weight and respectability-have committed themselves a little incautiously, and cannot, without loss of character, now recede an inch. There is not time to enter fully into the question, for I am summoned to the House of Lords to hear our friend the Bishop of Exeter on the Canada-Popish question. By-the-bye, let me beg the favour of you to tell me whether you still keep aloof from the Martyr Memorial Subscription. I am inclined to send another 5l., as they want money, and I should be obliged to you to convey it, if you have no objection, and if, at the same time, you think the case requires it. I have no superfluity, but have plenty of uses for all the pounds I have. Still I should be sorry to see this affair languish, and am quite ready to make this second offering. Believe me, my dear Provost, Ever sincerely yours, 'March 31, 1841. To Birmingham by railway in five hours and a quarter. On my arrival, drove to the Leasowes, seven miles; walked over the whole ground with a workman employed there. What a power of locomotion, without fatigue! I breakfasted at St. Paul's, left at twenty minutes past nine, went this journey of 120 miles, saw the whole of the interesting grounds of Shenstone (now sadly neglected) before dinner, and had an evening to myself of three or four hours for reading, writing, &c.' 'June 11. Spoke against the third reading of the Jews' Declaration Bill, and moved its rejection, which was carried by 98 to 64.' To this entry the annexed letter relates: My dear Chancellor, Deanery, St. Paul's, June 16, 1841. My speech on the Jew Bill was but indifferently reported. My main argument was, that the measure was perfectly inadmissible in the proposed form, 'as an extension of indulgence to the conscientious scruples of Quakers, Moravians, and other Christians.' If Jews were to be included, à fortiori might Mahometans, who do not regard Christ as an impostor or blasphemer, but as an inspired person sent from God.' That the measure, if entertained at all, ought to be placed upon another footing, an N |